Did Jesus go to the washroom?
#41
(07-02-2011, 10:27 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:21 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: No, although up until the 20th century Joseph was almost always depicted as older.  In the 20th century it has become quite popular to argue that Christ had no brothers, but that instead he only had cousins as the Hebrew word for brother and cousin is interchangeable.  This too is an ancient view going back to the 4th century.  But, it doesn't seem that it was very prevalent until recently.  The East still strongly believes Christ had brothers from Joesph's first marriage.  

In the end, as long as we accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, it doesn't really matter what we believe.  It's possible that Joseph was a perpetual virgin too!  However, the tradition that he was older and had children was much more prevalent (note that James is present in the first image above thus implying Joesph was his father) than that he was young and didn't until recently.  In addition, the fact that Joseph had died before Christ's death also suggests that he was either quite  older than Mary or died relatively young.  

What's not appropriate is for Catholics to attack other Catholics for their belief in either tradition.  

Thanks, I wasn't sure if there was any near-consensus opinion on it. Seems like the older view makes more sense, but you're right it doesn't really matter.

Why would you want to even entertain the idea of St. Jossph's chastity or viginity? Of what does it profit a soul to say we do not need to believe in his perpetual virginity? Why even go there? The Litany of St. Joseph seems to say different. So do the Church Fathers. What's your source, Someone? That it is not dogma? The Ressurection is not dogma either, if memory serves.

I think this topic also falls into the category of Trivial Pursuit of an unsavory nature. But please continue, you are making this a very entertaining Saturday night, Someone.

Reply
#42
(07-02-2011, 10:41 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:27 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:21 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: No, although up until the 20th century Joseph was almost always depicted as older.  In the 20th century it has become quite popular to argue that Christ had no brothers, but that instead he only had cousins as the Hebrew word for brother and cousin is interchangeable.  This too is an ancient view going back to the 4th century.  But, it doesn't seem that it was very prevalent until recently.  The East still strongly believes Christ had brothers from Joesph's first marriage.  

In the end, as long as we accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, it doesn't really matter what we believe.  It's possible that Joseph was a perpetual virgin too!  However, the tradition that he was older and had children was much more prevalent (note that James is present in the first image above thus implying Joesph was his father) than that he was young and didn't until recently.  In addition, the fact that Joseph had died before Christ's death also suggests that he was either quite  older than Mary or died relatively young.  

What's not appropriate is for Catholics to attack other Catholics for their belief in either tradition.  

Thanks, I wasn't sure if there was any near-consensus opinion on it. Seems like the older view makes more sense, but you're right it doesn't really matter.

Why would you want to even entertain the idea of St. Jossph's chastity or viginity? Of what does it profit a soul to say we do not need to believe in his perpetual virginity? Why even go there? The Litany of St. Joseph seems to say different. So do the Church Fathers. What's your source, Someone? That it is not dogma? The Ressurection is not dogma either, if memory serves.

I think this topic also falls into the category of Trivial Pursuit of an unsavory nature. But please continue, you are making this a very entertaining Saturday night, Someone.

The Ressurection is in the creed, and is the principle feast day of the Church. I think it's a dogma  ???

Joesph's perpetual virginity is not a dogma, but is believed by many people,  just not everyone.
Reply
#43
(07-02-2011, 10:41 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:27 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:21 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: No, although up until the 20th century Joseph was almost always depicted as older.  In the 20th century it has become quite popular to argue that Christ had no brothers, but that instead he only had cousins as the Hebrew word for brother and cousin is interchangeable.  This too is an ancient view going back to the 4th century.  But, it doesn't seem that it was very prevalent until recently.  The East still strongly believes Christ had brothers from Joesph's first marriage.  

In the end, as long as we accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, it doesn't really matter what we believe.  It's possible that Joseph was a perpetual virgin too!  However, the tradition that he was older and had children was much more prevalent (note that James is present in the first image above thus implying Joesph was his father) than that he was young and didn't until recently.  In addition, the fact that Joseph had died before Christ's death also suggests that he was either quite  older than Mary or died relatively young.  

What's not appropriate is for Catholics to attack other Catholics for their belief in either tradition.  

Thanks, I wasn't sure if there was any near-consensus opinion on it. Seems like the older view makes more sense, but you're right it doesn't really matter.

Why would you want to even entertain the idea of St. Jossph's chastity or viginity? Of what does it profit a soul to say we do not need to believe in his perpetual virginity? Why even go there? The Litany of St. Joseph seems to say different. So do the Church Fathers. What's your source, Someone? That it is not dogma? The Ressurection is not dogma either, if memory serves.

I think this topic also falls into the category of Trivial Pursuit of an unsavory nature. But please continue, you are making this a very entertaining Saturday night, Someone.

As someone involved in traditional Catholicism....I kinda get annoyed when people say the old traditions of the Church are no good.  The cult of Saint Joesph has exploded over the past two centuries, and this is a good thing, but I think we need to be wary of turning him into a male-version of Our Blessed Lady.  Many church Fathers believed Joseph to have had children from a previous marriage.  Most of the Eastern Fathers held this view along with the Latin Fathers St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours.  Saint Jerome opposed this view, but even he admitted there was nothing heretical in believing it. 

In addition many old paintings depict James, the brother of Christ, as part of the Holy Family.  Here is one example:

[Image: flight-into-egypt-01.jpg]
Reply
#44
(07-02-2011, 10:21 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 10:02 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 09:52 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: There is a VERY old tradition that Saint Joesph had children from a previous marriage before marrying Mary.  This is why up until recently Saint Joesph was almost always depicted as an older man.  Catholics are in no way required to believe in the perpetual virginity of Joseph. 

[Image: 1JO30.jpg]

[Image: StJoseph.jpg]

[Image: ST.+JOSEPH+AND+THE+YOUNG+JESUS.jpg]

It's interesting the various ways in which he has been depicted.
Has the Church ever made a statement regarding his age (even if failable)? or has it never really been mentioned at all?

No, although up until the 20th century Joseph was almost always depicted as older.  In the 20th century it has become quite popular to argue that Christ had no brothers, but that instead he only had cousins as the Hebrew word for brother and cousin is interchangeable.  This too is an ancient view going back to the 4th century.  Thus, without a need to explain Jesus' brothers one can accept a young Joseph.  But, it doesn't seem that this view was was very prevalent until recently.  The East still strongly believes Christ had brothers from Joesph's first marriage.  

In the end, as long as we accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, it doesn't really matter what we believe.  It's possible that Joseph was a perpetual virgin too!  However, the tradition that he was older and had children was much more prevalent than that he was young and didn't until recently.  In addition, the fact that Joseph had died before Christ's death also suggests that he was either quite  older than Mary or died relatively young.  

What's not appropriate is for Catholics to attack other Catholics for their belief in either tradition.  




I read in one of the mystics books he was about 60 when he died.
Reply
#45
Don't entrust your discipleship to yobs on the Internet.  Doctor Ludwig Ott is a highly credentialed theologian who gives an exhaustive account of the Truths of the Catholic Faith:

http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm
Reply
#46
(07-02-2011, 09:48 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 07:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 07:15 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: OK fair enough> Catherine Emmerich said (I think it was her) that Jesus always had the same garment to wear, only the 1, made by Mary, and it always just grew with Him, and never solied. There is much we dont know. Emmerich knows much. Amazon has the books.

Did Emmerich also believe St. Joseph was a perpetual virgin? If so, fodder for the fire that her visions are highly suspect.

So now, St Joseph was not a virgin? :pazzo:

That's correct, he wasn't.  :)  At least, not perpetually.
Reply
#47
(07-02-2011, 11:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: That's correct, he wasn't.  :)  At least, not perpetually.

Behave, Mel.  Although there is strong tradition to the contrary, there is a tradition that he lived a celibate life.  There is no need for you to purposely ruffle feathers over something that is open to interpretation. 
Reply
#48
If Our Lady was his only spouse, it would tend to follow that he was a virgin....  

As St. Jerome writes about the brethren of the Lord:

Certain people who follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, fancy that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ are the sons of Joseph from another wife and invent a certain woman, Melcha or Escha.  As is contained in the book which we wrote against Helvidius, we understand as ‘brethren of the Lord,’ not the sons of Joseph, but the cousins of the Savior, children of Mary – The Lord’s maternal aunt – who is said to be the mother of James the Less and Joseph and Jude, who as we read, were called ‘brethren of the Lord’ in another passage of the gospel.  Indeed all Scripture indicates that ‘cousins’ are called ‘brethren.’ http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#CH1


Reply
#49
(07-02-2011, 11:50 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: If Our Lady was his only spouse, it would tend to follow that he was a virgin....  

As St. Jerome writes about the brethren of the Lord:

Certain people who follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, fancy that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ are the sons of Joseph from another wife and invent a certain woman, Melcha or Escha.  As is contained in the book which we wrote against Helvidius, we understand as ‘brethren of the Lord,’ not the sons of Joseph, but the cousins of the Savior, children of Mary – The Lord’s maternal aunt – who is said to be the mother of James the Less and Joseph and Jude, who as we read, were called ‘brethren of the Lord’ in another passage of the gospel.  Indeed all Scripture indicates that ‘cousins’ are called ‘brethren.’]http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#CH1

There is a tradition that he was married beforehand though, there isn't a consensus among the fathers on this, or an established Church dogma. So those holding the view he was not a perpetual virgin shouldn't be bashed. Like someone said, St. Joesph wasn't given this much attention until the recent centuries so I'm sure this question didn't come up as much.
Reply
#50
(07-02-2011, 11:56 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(07-02-2011, 11:50 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: If Our Lady was his only spouse, it would tend to follow that he was a virgin....  

As St. Jerome writes about the brethren of the Lord:

Certain people who follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, fancy that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ are the sons of Joseph from another wife and invent a certain woman, Melcha or Escha.  As is contained in the book which we wrote against Helvidius, we understand as ‘brethren of the Lord,’ not the sons of Joseph, but the cousins of the Savior, children of Mary – The Lord’s maternal aunt – who is said to be the mother of James the Less and Joseph and Jude, who as we read, were called ‘brethren of the Lord’ in another passage of the gospel.  Indeed all Scripture indicates that ‘cousins’ are called ‘brethren.’]http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#CH1

There is a tradition that he was married beforehand though, there isn't a consensus among the fathers on this, or an established Church dogma. So those holding the view he was not a perpetual virgin shouldn't be bashed. Like someone said, St. Joesph wasn't given this much attention until the recent centuries so I'm sure this question didn't come up as much.

Jerome, and the author of the linked article, reject it.

    But just as we do not deny what is written, we do reject what is not written.  That God was born of a virgin we believe because we read it.  That Mary consummated marriage after her childbirth we do not believe because we do not read it.  Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage, for virginity is itself a fruit of marriage, but because there is no license to draw rash conclusions about holy men.  For if we wish to take the mere possibility into consideration, we can contend that Joseph had several wives because Abraham and Jacob had several wives and that from these wives, the ‘brethren of the Lord’were born, a fiction which most people invent with not so much pious as presumptuous audacity.  You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; even more do I claim that Joseph was virginal through Mary, in order that from a virginal marriage a virginal son might be born.  For if the charge of fornication does not fall on this holy man, and if it is not written that he had another wife, and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife, it remains to assert that he who merited to be called the father of the Lord remained virginal with her.[65]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)